Slashdot Mirror
EU Court Blocks Passenger Data Deal with U.S.
Reinier writes "The BBC reports that the European Court of Justice has ruled the airline data agreement with the United States is illegal. The 'agreement' required airlines to share 34 items of personal data of their passengers with American authorities at least fifteen minutes before take-off of any flight to the US. The Court of Justice examined the agreement after the European Parliament objected. A PDF of the ruling is available online."
This is what courts standing up for individual privacy rights look like.
Note how the US played the "Terrorism" card, and the courts didn't immediately fold.
You may wish to send this news item to your Attorney General.
Or you may wish to remain asleep.
Whatevers good with you.
That'll help all those EU-citizens a lot, that had their data sent to the USA in the past two years to be stored for the rest of eternity is all kind of dubious databases in the USA.
But better late than never. I always though the implementation of the treaty should have been postponed until this ruling.
From TFA, it seems the issue was more that the US doesn't guarantee sufficient protection of passanger data. Given that this data includes things like CC numbers and identifying information, I could see the concern.
Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security. Perhaps there are too few checks and balances with regard to who gets access to passenger data?
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
On the otherhand, it's good to see that the EU is flexing some muscle. Bush I believe will say..."they have some backbone..."
I think every traveller to the US will have to sign a document that allows the Flight Company to pass your personal data to the US (a.k.a. selling your soul).
You don't sign the document? You don't get on the flight.
Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US.
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
How to stamp out international tourism in 1 easy step.
What the USA is asking won't stop terrorists from getting on board planes. Not for a second. All it has the potential to do is flag innocent people.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
These were always daft US requirements that have nothing to do with terrorism. Its about time the US was brought back into line with international norms and forced to pay the price for their idiocies. They have far more to lose by not playing ball than the rest of the world, they cannot afford to play tough.
The US will be forced to implement tough and reasonable data protection regulations on this data - which they should have been doing since the beginning.
Why bother flying into Mexico? Just buy an identity from a shady US data collector and you're all set...
I really don't think any document signing or data collection is going to prevent any terrorist from getting into the states with false documents or under false pretenses.Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"The French backed down from sane free-market reforms in order to improve their high unemployment rate. They backed down due to the protests. No backbone there either."
ZOMG, an elected government listened to unhappy voters!
Hopefully, the US will back down. If not... this could turn out to be nasty. There've been a couple of trade wars with the US in recent years - recall the dispute over bananas, and then over steel - but this one would be a whole lot bigger. Banning flights? Brussels would retaliate hard.
Realistically, though, the US customs will just start demanding the information directly from the passenger on arrival, rather than getting it from the airline. It would be a big hassle, and would leave Europeans with an even worse impression of Americans than they already have, but at least it wouldn't spark off another trade war costing billions.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Let me see if I understand.
Sharing info BAD.
Logging all internet traffic(EU data retention acts) GOOD.
Huh?
But you do realize that none of the security measure put into place at airports have anything to do with catching or detering terrorists?
They were put into place to make people *feel* safer flying. Think about what that means for a moment.
Essentially, all of these rules were put into place to convince people it was safe to fly again, since people were freaked out after 9/11 and wouldn't fly. Please try to think for yourself, as Bush is too stupid to know what to do, and Chaney et al is too corrupt to care.
Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?
That would get in the way of their profits somewhat. (Though various US airlines would probably welcome a little less competition...)
I suspect that the airlines will demand the information themselves as a precondition of flying with them. In other words no actual change at all in the situation, apart from the responsibility for collecting the data no longer being a governmental thing. Technically, it becomes voluntary... though the airline won't let you onto the plane if you don't give it.
It's a win-win situation: The EU get to wash their hands of any dodgy legal issues, and everybody else is still precisely as happy about the situation as they were before.
It's never so bad that it can't get worse.
First of all, which financial aid do you think the US of A is giving to europe right now ? you`re talking about a confederation which has quite a few permanent members in the G8, the group of the 8 largest and richest states.
:-) or such... and I expect quite some americans to fall
even though small on the map, it is an even match for the US.
Just because people in the US of A do not know foreign politics and economics is no reason to ass-ume that europe is some kind of developing country. after all, a european company owns chrysler, more than half of all cellphone companies (nokia, siemens, the ericsson in sony-ericsson) come from there, and for the sake of statistics, its the third largest arms exporter after the US of A and the former Soviet states.
If the US blocks flights from europe, the reverse is also possible, dealing a major blow to international flights, given that london heathrow and frankfurt and paris are among the worlds 10 premier airports (frankfurt is one of the top freight exchanges and passenger exchanges).
This would also be a major blow for airline industry on both sides of the pond, with european airlines better positioned then the US airlines (lufthansa could e.g. use other airlines of the five-star-alliance to legally correct circumvent this, other european lines have similar agreements).
Since european court has enough power to enforce member states to change their laws (its compareable to american superior courts on US of A level
e.g. forbidding the State of Washington to open an airport named Washington Airport
for this argument trap - look up Washington vs. DC), it is highly unlikely
that anything overturns this rule within the next few years.
It`s sad for the US of A to realize, but they can fold in, or good bye atlantic air travel. most likely its going to be a compromise, which will
in the end secure that no data from european citizens is resold, while
world and dog suffer on.
And one more thing - the rule of the european central court is enough to make for serious diplomatic trouble with the US of A if necessary. If anyone just said "screw you, mate" - it was the european court...
don`t forget that they have a few hundred years more history of fighting tradewars, going back to the british colonial trade emporium and the hanse and others. this is europe, not your next door underdeveloped country.
just for the record, I would not open my mouth that wide if I where living in one of the most freedom hating, 1984 security countries of the world.
bush is to economy and ecology what a.h. was to peace in 1939.
My guess is that there will be no practical change.
"(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer;"
The airlines will add a clause to the ticketing agreement such that the passenger has unambiguously given his consent to the data transfer, and all will continue as currently. This is the same arrangement that allows airport security to search you - they have no *right* to do so, but conversely they have no *obligation* to let you into their airport. You can either be searched, or not get on the plane - the choice is yours.
[sarcasm] Oh, great! So if I don't want my government to spy on me I can move to the US! That's wonderful.[/sarcasm}
It's the most ridiculous thing I heard all day.
Oh, and another ting: Why do you trust random corporations more than your government?!?! At least with the goverment you have a say in who makes the decisions, and you can punish them if they screw up.
This is of course just a realization that the US isn't as democratic as they like to pretend, as evidenced by the low voter turnouts at elections.
Go ahead and mod me down! But please stop and think if this troll might be making just a little bit of sense before you hit the moderate button.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Yeah and I loved Canada because they take care of their poor and homelessness is non-existant there ... until I found out they have a hell of a lot of homeless people.
Don't believe what you read in the papers or see on TV. America isn't the land of 6'2" blonde cowboys.
Yes, that sums it up quite well. And given the choice, trusting the gouvernement seems more reasonable, as they already have certain monopols (law making, law enforcement, military power). So if your gouvernement becomes corrupt to a point that even basic trust isn't justified any more, your personal data will be your least concern. Another feature of gouvernements is that it keeps the level of corruption rather equal across the branches. So if you still have a few branches you trust, there's a good chance you can trust the other branches as much.
On the other side you have the private sector, where every corporation does as it thinks it can get away with. If one oversteps the boundary, they'll declare bankrupt and the same people start another corporation with a different name and the same game. Self-regulation has been proven many times in the past not to work, a very popular example for this is boiler safety in the UK and US in the late 1800s. If the major concern is the protection of weak individuals against corporations, asking the industry to play fair and nice is naïve, if so much money can be made by not playing nice. Also corporations will have a hard time being more trustworthy than the gouvernement, which can threaten the people working in the corporation. Never underestimate the persuavie power of free roaming death-squads.
To balance things out, the private sector works far better if the goal is effiency to deliver products and services. So if you want cheap and efficient data protection, go to the private sector, if you want trustworthy data protection, stay with the gouvernement.
These rights are more to prevent the gouvernement to sell this data to the next direct marketeer, which will use it to make personalised adds along the road you drive every morning, or to have pharmacies sell your drug purchase history to your employer.
The political weasels would be more much likely to 'make the data available' to their bretheren the corporate weasels in exchange for campaign contributions than to sell it outright. They may have had their sense of morality surgically removed but they are not stupid. For Europeans ther is a bright side to this, at least the EU is finally growing a backbone vis-a-vis the USA. One of GWB's greatest legacies will probably be that with his 'Go it alone and damn what the rest of the world thinks!' policy he has burned through whatever credit the US had with the Europeans over the US saving their bacon durng WWII and he has done so in an amazingly short period of time.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Because a lot of terrorists striking the US came through this route lately...
Seriously, this and other measures are totally useless and inefficient to deter terrorists. The 9/11 hijackers had perfectly valid travel papers and would have been most likely granted entry even had these rules been in place. Building fences isn't going to do much, I'd rather suggest solving the problem at the source - US involvement in the Middle East.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
I think you are misunderstanding the situation: it is perfectly fine to belittle a situation that you find stupid, although it often reflects more on the person making the comment than on the subject. That is one of the rights that my grandfather certainly fought for. He is not belittling France's right to self-determination, only the decision they came to. If that is forbidden ground, then the rest of the world needs to STFU about our Idiot in Chief, as we sadly elected him to a second term, Bob help us.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
That would get in the way of their profits somewhat.
So would getting fined to the tune of $6000 per passenger if they were to remain subject to the US rules.
I suspect that the airlines will demand the information themselves as a precondition of flying with them. In other words no actual change at all in the situation, apart from the responsibility for collecting the data no longer being a governmental thing. Technically, it becomes voluntary... though the airline won't let you onto the plane if you don't give it.
I could be reading the article incorrectly, but it looks to me that the act of handing over this data to the US government violates the EU Data Protection Directive. So it makes no difference if the data is handed over to the US "voluntarily" by the airline, or by directive by an agreement between the US and EU: both are equally non-permissable by the above directive, and the data cannot be handed over (according to this ruling).
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
That won't work. You seem to misunderstand the situation.
The thing is, the airlines, in Europe, already collect all this information (or for the part they don't nessecarily, like email-adress, I'm certain the US accepts this field being left blank) while handing out the ticket. For example, by nesecity they'll know how you paid for your ticket, at what date you ordered it, if you bougth a one-way or return ticket and so on.
The thing is, the US government demands the airlines hand over all of this information on their passengers if flying into the US.
This ruling now says that doing so would be a violation of EU data-protection laws, thus the airlines cannot legally comply with the US request.
That puts them in a bind. This would change precisely not at all if the data should be handed to a US private company instead of US intelligence.
I'm sure some solution will be found, shutting down all Europe->USA fligths so that one could get into the US from Europe only by flying by a third country (such as Canada or Mexico) is unthinkable.
Given that the London and Madrid bombings took place on trains and on a bus, and we're talking about airline security - isn't this a little off-topic?
(I'm American)
And I have a problem with this.
Remember, the hijackers in 2001 were all in the country legally. We had all the info on them we needed, either it just didn't add up or we failed to act upon it.
There's no way I'm surrendering my email address (amongst other things) to fly.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I believe thats called "the right of self-determination". Your grandfather probably helped fight for it in World War 2, only for you to belittle it.
Yes, my grandfather was in France in WWII, and fought for France's right of self-determination, and he'd be one of the first to belittle some of the things they've chosen to do with that right.
Similarly, I believe deeply in the democratic process, but that doesn't mean that I automatically approve of every action taken by every democratic government.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's also counterproductive. You end up submerging your intelligence services with a mountain of undirected information, from which they can't possibly discover anything. The CIA didn't miss the 9/11 hijackers because they had too little information, they missed them because they had too much. Catching terrorists requires directed operations, based on actual intelligence. Data mining won't get you anywhere.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
US terror watchlist 80,000 names long: report. aspx?newsid=1312/
"The classified list, which carried just 16 names before the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington had grown to 1,000 by the end of 2001, to 40,000 a year later and now stands at 80,000"
8 Dec 2005
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744
Yes, they do. The same part of the bible that says gay sex is a sin also has similarly strong words for those who eat shellfish. Quote the book itself:
This is where "kosher" comes from. It's food that follows the laws stated in The Old Testiment. If you don't follow them, you will burn in hell aparently. Things like kosher and halal may seem silly to some, but they are no more silly than anything else in religion.
That's highly unlikely. Firstly, Canada would be a better choice to do that. Secondly, there are a dozen easier ways. Sail in on a private charter, cargo ship, or a cruise with false tourist visas. Similar tricks can be done with air traffic to smaller airports. The walk from Mexico is through a desert and the end is guarded by rednecks with dogs & guns. Tough choice...
Most of this thread has missed the point.
The U.S. is a soverign nation, not part of the EU. Travel into the U.S. is at the discretion of the U.S.
All this means is increased screening of people travelling from the E.U. and increased cost to them.
It doesn't matter at all what the EU says, they don't control entry to the U.S.
EU: We demand our laws be upheld
US: That's fine, your laws apply to your land, not ours. Give us the details we want to allow entry.
EU: No
US: OK, no entry. Next.